The High Court refused leave to seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeals Tribunal decision concerning a minor’s refugee status, finding that substantial grounds for the challenge had not been made out.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Colm Mac Eochaidh on 21 December 2012, concerned a child identified as T O, who was born in Ireland and brought the application through her mother as next friend. The mother had made an unsuccessful asylum application. The child’s asylum application was also refused by the Refugee Applications Commissioner and appealed to the Tribunal.
The mother’s case was that her daughter would face persecution in Nigeria because the mother’s mental illness and lack of extended family would leave her unable to care for the child. The appeal referred to reports of ill-treatment and stigma affecting people with mental illness in Nigeria and included three medical reports concerning the mother. The Tribunal concluded that mental health care and medication were available in Nigeria, that assistance could be sought from non-governmental organisations, and that the child did not qualify for international protection on the grounds advanced.
At the leave hearing, the applicant argued that country information supported a likelihood that the mother would not receive treatment. The judge reviewed that material and found it showed mental health services and medication were available, with no conflicting accounts that the Tribunal had selectively resolved. He held that the Tribunal’s conclusion on service availability was rational. He added that even proof the mother would probably go untreated would not, by itself, establish entitlement to refugee status.
A second proposed ground concerned the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The applicant argued that the Tribunal had recited the Convention but had not explained how it affected its decision. The judge said the Convention had not been invoked in the notice of appeal as a submission requiring a response. Its inclusion as part of the Tribunal’s general legal context did not require separate conclusions on how each provision affected the outcome. He also said the Convention could not require refugee status to be granted to a person who did not otherwise qualify.
A separate issue about whether the refugee determination process provided an effective remedy under the EU Procedures Directive was adjourned by agreement pending a decision from the Court of Justice of the European Union. The High Court’s refusal of leave addressed the grounds argued at this hearing; the judgment does not state the Court of Justice’s later ruling.